toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A bit orthogonal to the thread... but since you asked ;)
I find forks to be a far superior metric of a project's success at building a community, interest in the project, and maintaining a long-running project. Forks indicate individual or corporate developer interest. Some percentage of forks result in PRs from said forker. This ratio is easy to measure at the project level via the github timeline or the google bigquery data export to github. This ratio could be used to objectively measure the success of a project (while stars are highly subjective in nature and there is an open market for star purchases). Gaming forks would be more involved...
Would be helpful if github provided this information in the form of "community health" on their dashboards.
The PR LGTM (although I don't represent netdata) and is much more diplomatic than a public complaint or involving attorneys/etc :). Thanks for protecting the CNCF.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:26 PM Liz Rice <liz@...
Thank you Dan
I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out.
On 6 Jun 2019, 22:46 +0100, Dan Kohn <dan@...
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/
Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.
Just thinking out loud.
On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...
The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected". This is an
example of "lying by omission". It is not OK.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:
+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo. @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.
IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.
A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
It's technically not wrong I guess....
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.